I need feedback such as grammar and spelling, facts (such as dates and names), and references. The biggest concern I have are having references. I can't just say something and reference a conversation posted here or at the Smoking Lounge. Dieselpunk has a reputation for not being "notable." There are gaps in the article that I really need to be able to fill if possible.

Be aware I may not use all feedback is given. I do have to decide what fits and what doesn't. If your suggestion isn't used then if Wiki allows it to be posted then you can register and go into and edit like anyone else can.

You will see an example image on the right of the page. Stefan has been so kind as to agree at my request to make one of his fantastic creations to insert there.

Please, I need feedback. After everyone has looked it over and I've made whatever changes are needed then I will send it to the Wiki staff.

Replies to This Discussion

Just to show you guys how ridiculous Wikipedia can sometimes be: They're actually having a serious discussion over on the World of Warcraft talk page about whether or not it should be mentioned that WoW has steampunk elements in it. The statement about it - just one line! - is flagged on the main WoW page as "dubious." I don't even play the game and I know it has heavy steampunk elements in it in places.

It would be really cool if someone could take this version of the page, Piecraft's old version, the TV Tropes page and the stuff at the Gatehouse, put them all together and run with it, publish a book or research paper on the subject or something. There's enough content in all those places to make quite an interesting read, I think. And I know we've got quite a few historians in our midst...

I put Piecraft's excellent "History of Dieselpunk" series, previously published in issues 3, 4 and 5 of the Gatehouse Gazette, up on the website. Not sure if they're helpful. In all likelihood, they'll be dismissed as "original research" according to Wikipedia's standards, but in either event, they may be useful to improve the entry. Good luck!

Well, it got deleted. An admin decided the Deletes made a stronger case.

I suggest at this point that we can archive the full article on this website for research purposes (I saved a fairly recent copy containing edits up to June 5th), and then look through it for all of the references that were solid (i.e. not "self published" from blogs or forums or other online journals, and not containing "neologisms" - new words that don't appear in the dictionary) and work on adding a solid, well-referenced section to retro-futurism with a link over to steampunk, as was discussed in the deletion review log. Perhaps we can start a forum thread here to work on crafting it before we put it over there, or in your wiki sandbox, Larry, so it gets solidified and doesn't get deleted outright.

I have to admit some of those sources are from blogs, but others looked pretty legit!

Jonny B. Goode said:

Well, it got deleted. An admin decided the Deletes made a stronger case. I suggest at this point that we can archive the full article on this website for research purposes (I saved a fairly recent copy containing edits up to June 5th), and then look through it for all of the references that were solid (i.e. not "self published" from blogs or forums or other online journals, and not containing "neologisms" - new words that don't appear in the dictionary) and work on adding a solid, well-referenced section to retro-futurism with a link over to steampunk, as was discussed in the deletion review log. Perhaps we can start a forum thread here to work on crafting it before we put it over there, or in your wiki sandbox, Larry, so it gets solidified and doesn't get deleted outright.

I have to admit some of those sources are from blogs, but others looked pretty legit!

Jonny B. Goode said:

Well, it got deleted. An admin decided the Deletes made a stronger case. I suggest at this point that we can archive the full article on this website for research purposes (I saved a fairly recent copy containing edits up to June 5th), and then look through it for all of the references that were solid (i.e. not "self published" from blogs or forums or other online journals, and not containing "neologisms" - new words that don't appear in the dictionary) and work on adding a solid, well-referenced section to retro-futurism with a link over to steampunk, as was discussed in the deletion review log. Perhaps we can start a forum thread here to work on crafting it before we put it over there, or in your wiki sandbox, Larry, so it gets solidified and doesn't get deleted outright.

If it's going to survive in Wikipedia, it needs to be scaled back to one solid line or paragraph.

They're looking for the shortest, most bullet-proof answer possible, and it can be expanded from there as we come into our own. Don't include any inspirations or examples unless the original piece was specifically published as "dieselpunk."

That's my thought at the moment. Go through the whole thing, find all of the places where there is a good solid reference, condense it down to one or two paragraphs and splice it into retro-futurism, where it seems to fit best.

Tome Wilson said:

I think we overshot the goal.

If it's going to survive in Wikipedia, it needs to be scaled back to one solid line or paragraph.

They're looking for the shortest, most bullet-proof answer possible, and it can be expanded from there as we come into our own. Don't include any inspirations or examples unless the original piece was specifically published as "dieselpunk."